Jump to content
Olympique_de_Marseille

USA vs Canada - Friday Nov 15th, Orlando FL

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

If we are dreaming how about Jan Stam and Jason Devos circa 1999.  

That would be quite the hairless duo. I assume you mean Jaap Stam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good take from Carmelina Moscato... very much agree that Berhalter’s switch in tactics/formation to a 4-2-3-1 really un-did our plans.  It means that Herman needs to do a better job of preparing for all the possible “what-ifs” the opponent might bring and be willing and able to adjust tactics in game.

https://canpl.ca/article/moscato-3-takeaways-on-canmnts-loss-to-the-u-s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone with a much deeper understanding of the game than me please explain what in heaven's name Borjan was doing taking over the free kick just inside the US's half in about minute 75'. The team was coming on well, having just scored and he decides to get involved in an important FK which leads to a ridiculous give and go over the ball . I mean his skill with the ball at his foot is dubious as evidenced these last few years so what in **** was he doing, other than putting a damper on the momentum we had to that point. Not a fan of Borjan at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TOcanadafan said:

Good take from Carmelina Moscato... very much agree that Berhalter’s switch in tactics/formation to a 4-2-3-1 really un-did our plans.  It means that Herman needs to do a better job of preparing for all the possible “what-ifs” the opponent might bring and be willing and able to adjust tactics in game.

https://canpl.ca/article/moscato-3-takeaways-on-canmnts-loss-to-the-u-s

"Herdman intended to have him affect the play higher up the field by using him as a left back, but based on a number of problems, namely a lack of possession, it never came fruition."

How about affecting the play higher up the field by using him as a left wing?  If you asked the American coaching staff, I'm pretty sure they were happier to see him at LB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think this US team is a bit underrated. The anxiety and impatience of their fans mixed with a disrespect towards us have people with a diluted sense of the current reality. The US is just kinda stuck between 2 cycles right now but you'll start to see their new generation start to punch thru.  I think we've started a nice rivalry with them for years to come 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say, in Herdman’s defence, that if we don’t get the win last month - which many attributed to his formation and tactics - we wouldn’t have had such an emotional investment in last night’s game. Doesn’t make last night any less painful, but I think it does temper some of the criticism.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BearcatSA said:

Starting Davies at LB instead of in a more advanced role where he still could provide LB defensive support was akin to kissing the American ring.  

I watched the American coverage on ESPN2 and the commentators were saying the USA got lucky Davies was at LB and not further up the pitch.

Edited by Bertuzzi44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TOcanadafan said:

Good take from Carmelina Moscato... very much agree that Berhalter’s switch in tactics/formation to a 4-2-3-1 really un-did our plans.  It means that Herman needs to do a better job of preparing for all the possible “what-ifs” the opponent might bring and be willing and able to adjust tactics in game.

https://canpl.ca/article/moscato-3-takeaways-on-canmnts-loss-to-the-u-s

Tell me about it. Herdman had the opportunity to change something. Maybe change to a 4-3-3, pushing Davies up and Kaye at LB all without making a sub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpursFlu said:

I actually think this US team is a bit underrated. The anxiety and impatience of their fans mixed with a disrespect towards us have people with a diluted sense of the current reality. The US is just kinda stuck between 2 cycles right now but you'll start to see their new generation start to punch thru.  I think we've started a nice rivalry with them for years to come 

Agree but it may be several years before we play them again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone has likely already stated this, but I think the entire game can be summed up in that moment when Davies tried to manufacture a "non-backpass" to Borjan.  First, it was very naïve, a sign that our core team is still quite young, that maybe Davies was playing in the wrong place, that Herdman got his line up and tactics wrong, and that we've still a long ways to go before we see the sun!  Yes, the US got their tactics right and were clinical in capitalizing on our sloppy play, but they were not especially dominant last night.  We certainly did not make it hard for them, and part of that has to do with formation and tactics. 

Understanding Davies at LB for Bayern vs. Canada is key here, not just to Davies' performance, but to our overall success, which includes Herdman's ability to understand the game.  Davies at LB for Bayern is asked to play defense first, and only spring forward judiciously.  He is still learning the position, in no way comes to it naturally--his new coach at Bayern has pointed out how poor his positioning is--and has an amazing supporting cast at Bayer who DO know positioning etc at the highest level.  Not so with Canada. Sure, he was asked to play LB defensively by Herdman, but he was also told to be Phonzie, marauding forward like a free gazelle whenever he saw the chance.  The issue isn't the fact that he surged forward, but the fact that he was caught between two roles, which is never an easy thing for even the most seasoned footballers to pull off. 

For a game like this, I would have challenged the US to try to break us down, then hit them on the counter.  I am not saying we should have bunkered, but we should have acknowledged their formation and tactical shift, and the fact that we were playing on their turf. Something like:

Laryea  Cornelius Vitoria  Miller

          Piette Kaye

Hoillet  Arfield   Davies

             David

This line up would provide Miller with coverage--Kaye and Davies--would allow Kaye or Piette to step forward when there was an opportunity, would have made us tough to break down, and would give us some solid counter attacking options with Davies and Hoillet on the wings.

In short, we need more games.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Beaver 2.0 said:

Someone has likely already stated this, but I think the entire game can be summed up in that moment when Davies tried to manufacture a "non-backpass" to Borjan.  First, it was very naïve, a sign that our core team is still quite young, that maybe Davies was playing in the wrong place, that Herdman got his line up and tactics wrong, and that we've still a long ways to go before we see the sun!  Yes, the US got their tactics right and were clinical in capitalizing on our sloppy play, but they were not especially dominant last night.  We certainly did not make it hard for them, and part of that has to do with formation and tactics. 

Understanding Davies at LB for Bayern vs. Canada is key here, not just to Davies' performance, but to our overall success, which includes Herdman's ability to understand the game.  Davies at LB for Bayern is asked to play defense first, and only spring forward judiciously.  He is still learning the position, in no way comes to it naturally--his new coach at Bayern has pointed out how poor his positioning is--and has an amazing supporting cast at Bayer who DO know positioning etc at the highest level.  Not so with Canada. Sure, he was asked to play LB defensively by Herdman, but he was also told to be Phonzie, marauding forward like a free gazelle whenever he saw the chance.  The issue isn't the fact that he surged forward, but the fact that he was caught between two roles, which is never an easy thing for even the most seasoned footballers to pull off. 

For a game like this, I would have challenged the US to try to break us down, then hit them on the counter.  I am not saying we should have bunkered, but we should have acknowledged their formation and tactical shift, and the fact that we were playing on their turf. Something like:

Laryea  Cornelius Vitoria  Miller

          Piette Kaye

Hoillet  Arfield   Davies

             David

This line up would provide Miller with coverage--Kaye and Davies--would allow Kaye or Piette to step forward when there was an opportunity, would have made us tough to break down, and would give us some solid counter attacking options with Davies and Hoillet on the wings.

In short, we need more games.  

 

 

 

We needed a point, the onus was on the US to break us down and based on the players we have and the team the USA has and how they played it was actually the best case scenario for us.  We have lots of good defensive midfielders and we have Davies and Hoilett who are very good on the counter.  The USA has been plagued with mistakes trying to build play and break teams down and that is another check mark for setting up solid with an eye to counter attacking when the chance arrives.  This is simple tactics 101 and lots of us see it, yet Herdman complicated things because he's trying to prove he belongs at the level I'd imagine.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, villus said:

We needed a point, the onus was on the US to break us down and based on the players we have and the team the USA has and how they played it was actually the best case scenario for us.  We have lots of good defensive midfielders and we have Davies and Hoilett who are very good on the counter.  The USA has been plagued with mistakes trying to build play and break teams down and that is another check mark for setting up solid with an eye to counter attacking when the chance arrives.  This is simple tactics 101 and lots of us see it, yet Herdman complicated things because he's trying to prove he belongs at the level I'd imagine.  

In a game like this...

Benito Floro would have been most welcome

arrested development hiding GIF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, villus said:

We needed a point, the onus was on the US to break us down and based on the players we have and the team the USA has and how they played it was actually the best case scenario for us.  We have lots of good defensive midfielders and we have Davies and Hoilett who are very good on the counter.  The USA has been plagued with mistakes trying to build play and break teams down and that is another check mark for setting up solid with an eye to counter attacking when the chance arrives.  This is simple tactics 101 and lots of us see it, yet Herdman complicated things because he's trying to prove he belongs at the level I'd imagine.  

In Vitoria's post match interview, he said Herdman asked if they wanted to bunker but players asked for attack mode. 

Canadian players have shown they tend to overestimate themselves. So, Herdman shouldn't have listened to them. Most people on this forum would have also gone with attack mode given how Floroball was eviscerated but now minds have changed? Or is all of this opining based on personality issues with coaches?

Don't know if counter attacking would have created more than the goal scored but it may have forced a draw. 

3G is all about players being in the right position. The US players were mostly in the right spot last night and made no major self-inflicted mistakes, so it would have been difficult to break them down ex during set pieces. US doesn't really have chops to break down Canada either except during set pieces and when errors are made by the backline and goalkeeper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, red card said:

In Vitoria's post match interview, he said Herdman asked if they wanted to bunker but players asked for attack mode. 

Canadian players have shown they tend to overestimate themselves. So, Herdman shouldn't have listened to them. Most people on this forum would have also gone with attack mode given how Floroball was eviscerated but now minds have changed? Or is all of this opining based on personality issues with coaches?

Don't know if counter attacking would have created more than the goal scored but it may have forced a draw. 

3G is all about players being in the right position. The US players were mostly in the right spot last night and made no major self-inflicted mistakes, so it would have been difficult to break them down ex during set pieces. US doesn't really have chops to break down Canada either except during set pieces and when errors are made by the backline and goalkeeper.

100% we should have parked the bus and hit them on the counter attack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, red card said:

In Vitoria's post match interview, he said Herdman asked if they wanted to bunker but players asked for attack mode. 

Canadian players have shown they tend to overestimate themselves. So, Herdman shouldn't have listened to them. Most people on this forum would have also gone with attack mode given how Floroball was eviscerated but now minds have changed? Or is all of this opining based on personality issues with coaches?

Don't know if counter attacking would have created more than the goal scored but it may have forced a draw. 

3G is all about players being in the right position. The US players were mostly in the right spot last night and made no major self-inflicted mistakes, so it would have been difficult to break them down ex during set pieces. US doesn't really have chops to break down Canada either except during set pieces and when errors are made by the backline and goalkeeper.

There were a few options 1) attack mode 2) park the bus 3) in between where we come out and close down and press pick our spots to press and hunt in packs

 

2 and 3 have very solid arguments, 1 doesn't, we don't need to win and we are on the road against a team that is fired up and a tie is a huge boost for us and allows us to keep getting points if I'm not mistaken, but on top of that 2 and 3 for me still give us a great chance at getting a win because the USA have showed they try to play out and make a lot of mistakes and struggle to pass out and break down teams.  Even if we went with attack mode I don't think we have the team to dominate possession and get two attacking fullbacks forward and pin the US back in their half, they played a very attacking lineup and still have talent.  

I think clearly 3 is the way to go, you also set yourself up to adjust in game no matter what happens, starting the same way we did in Canada made a lot of sense and we back off when we don't have a chance to win the ball and when we do we come out and press as a unit and work our socks off with David and Davies pressing at the back and the 4 mids being solid with one attacking fullback and one fullback that is going to stay home and cover for the side Davies is mainly patrolling giving him freedom to attack and roam.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, red card said:

In Vitoria's post match interview, he said Herdman asked if they wanted to bunker but players asked for attack mode. 

Canadian players have shown they tend to overestimate themselves. So, Herdman shouldn't have listened to them. Most people on this forum would have also gone with attack mode given how Floroball was eviscerated but now minds have changed? Or is all of this opining based on personality issues with coaches?

Don't know if counter attacking would have created more than the goal scored but it may have forced a draw. 

3G is all about players being in the right position. The US players were mostly in the right spot last night and made no major self-inflicted mistakes, so it would have been difficult to break them down ex during set pieces. US doesn't really have chops to break down Canada either except during set pieces and when errors are made by the backline and goalkeeper.

People on the forum also underestimated the States ability to 1) get motivated and 2) adjust tactically to what we did in Toronto. They were never a poor team, even without some of their best players.  

- One thing I noticed, allowing myself to reflect further, David is one of the better runners of the break I have seen, even against decent opposition but he has willing runners around him with his club. I don't get to see Cavallini very much, so my judgment only carries so much weight but he was not making the smart runs. 

I think we also have to look at what we do when something goes wrong, the quick goal here, the first goal against Haiti etc. We have talent but flaws in a lot of area, mistakes are going to happen, how can we respond better.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone noted this on quote from Cornelius on reddit.  I thought it was interested:

We tried playing a style today which was different from what we did in Toronto, but it felt a bit forced,” said Derek Cornelius, who came on for the injured Doneil Henry in the second half. “I think that’s what played into their hands in the first half. A lot of what we wanted to do, we tried to force it when it wasn’t on and just gave them opportunities from nothing.”

 

https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2019/11/15/canada-admit-early-usmnt-goal-loss-was-worst-thing-could-have-happened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lamptern said:

Why we make changes while the systems works for us and players feel comfortable? 

Because it was at home, now you are on the road and you are damn sure the USA was going to do things different with a different roster.  The adjustments herdman made for the first game worked..he tried to craft a gameplan to match the opponent and situation for game 2 and we got ****** by a bad bounce minutes into the game.  And from there on they couldnt get it back and I blame that on too few games, not enough real tests for this team in the last few years.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...